scholarly journals Gastroscopy Following a Positive Fecal Occult Blood Test and Negative Colonoscopy: Systematic Review and Guideline

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johane Allard ◽  
Roxanne Cosby ◽  
M Elisabeth Del Giudice ◽  
E Jan Irvine ◽  
David Morgan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Test ◽  
Fecal Occult Blood Test ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Occult Blood ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Fecal Occult Blood ◽  
Occult Blood Test ◽  
Crc Screening ◽  
Fecal Occult

BACKGROUND: A sizeable number of individuals who participate in population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs and have a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) do not have an identifiable lesion found at colonoscopy to account for their positive FOBT screen.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence and provide recommendations regarding the use of routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to detect upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancers in patients participating in a population-based CRC screening program who are FOBT positive and colonoscopy negative.METHODS: A systematic review was used to develop the evidentiary base and to inform the evidence-based recommendations provided.RESULTS: Nine studies identified a group of patients who were FOBT positive and colonoscopy negative. Three studies found no cases of UGI cancer. Four studies reported cases of UGI cancer; three found UGI cancer in 1% or less of the population studied, and one study found one case of UGI cancer that represented 7% of their small subgroup of FOBT-positive/colonoscopy-negative patients. Two studies did not provide outcome information that could be specifically related to the FOBT-positive/colonoscopy-negative subgroup.CONCLUSION: The current body of evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routine EGD as a means of detecting gastric or esophageal cancers for patients who are FOBT positive/colonoscopy negative, in a population-based CRC screening program. The decision to perform EGD should be individualized and based on clinical judgement.

scholarly journals Validity of Fecal Occult Blood Test in the National Cancer Screening Program, Korea

PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. e79292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aesun Shin ◽  
Kui Son Choi ◽  
Jae Kwan Jun ◽  
Dai Keun Noh ◽  
Mina Suh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Blood Test ◽  
Fecal Occult Blood Test ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Occult Blood ◽  
Fecal Occult Blood ◽  
Occult Blood Test ◽  
Fecal Occult ◽  
Cancer Screening Program

Colon capsule versus computed tomography colonography for colorectal cancer screening in patients with positive fecal occult blood test who refuse colonoscopy: a randomized trial

Endoscopy ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (08) ◽  
pp. 761-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu Pioche ◽  
Christell Ganne ◽  
Rodica Gincul ◽  
Antoine De Leusse ◽  
Julien Marsot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Blood Test ◽  
Fecal Occult Blood Test ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Occult Blood ◽  
Fecal Occult Blood ◽  
Occult Blood Test ◽  
Computed Tomography Colonography ◽  
Invitation Letter ◽  
Fecal Occult

Abstract Objective Some patients (10 % – 32 %) with a positive guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) do not undergo the recommended colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to compare video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and computed tomography colonography (CTC) in terms of participation rate and detection outcomes when offered to patients with a positive gFOBT who did not undergo the recommended colonoscopy. Methods An invitation letter offering CTC or VCE was sent to selected patients after randomization. Acceptance of the proposed (or alternative) procedure and procedure results were recorded. Sample size was evaluated according to the hypothesis of a 13 % increase of participation with VCE. Results A total of 756 patients were targeted. Following the invitation letter, 5.0 % (19/378) of patients underwent the proposed VCE and 7.4 % (28/378) underwent CTC, (P = 0.18). Following the letter, 9.8 % (37/378) of patients in the VCE group underwent a diagnostic procedure (19 VCE, 1 CTC, 17 colonoscopy) vs. 10.8 % in the CTC group (41/378: 28 CTC, 13 colonoscopy; P = 0.55). There were more potentially neoplastic lesions diagnosed in the VCE group than in the CTC group (12/20 [60.0 %] vs. 8/28 [28.6 %]; P = 0.04). Thus, 15/20 noninvasive procedures in the VCE group (19 VCE, 1 CTC; 75.0 %) vs. 10/28 in the CTC group (35.7 %; P = 0.01) resulted in a recommendation of further colonoscopy, but only 10/25 patients actually underwent this proposed colonoscopy. Conclusion Patients with a positive gFOBT result who do not undergo the recommended colonoscopy are difficult to recruit to the screening program and simply proposing an additional, less-invasive procedure, such as VCE or CTC, is not an effective strategy.

Colorectal cancer screening: Why do some people never participate? Results from the EDIFICE surveys.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 565-565
Author(s):  
Jerome Viguier ◽  
François Eisinger ◽  
Chantal Touboul ◽  
Christine Lhomel ◽  
Jean F. Morere
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Blood Test ◽  
Fecal Occult Blood Test ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Occult Blood ◽  
Fecal Occult Blood ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Occult Blood Test ◽  
Fecal Occult

565 Background: The aim of EDIFICE surveys is to improve insight into the behavior of the French population with regard to cancer prevention and participation in screening programs. Via the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program, all average-risk individuals in the 50-74-yr age group are invited every 2 years to do a guaiac-based or immunochemical fecal occult blood test. This analysis focuses on lay-population reasons for not undergoing the test. Methods: The 5th nationwide observational survey was conducted by phone interviews using the quota method. A representative sample of 1299 individuals with no history of cancer (age, 50-74 yrs) was interviewed between 22 November and 7 December 2016. Those who had never undertaken a screening test were asked for their reasons. Results: In total, 64% reported having undergone a screening test (colonoscopy, fecal occult blood test) at least once in their lifetime (coverage). There was a non-significant (NS) increase in coverage rates over the period 2014-2016. In 2016, the most frequently (36%) cited reason for not being screened was “individual negligence/not a priority”. This figure was significantly higher than in 2014 (24%, P < 0.05). Between one in four and one in five respondents answered “no risk factor” in both 2014 and 2016. Approximately one in ten respondents gave “pointlessness” as their reason for not being screened (12% in 2016 vs 8% in 2014, NS) while “fear of the examination or fear of the results”, “reasons related to the physician (he never suggested it” [3.8% in 2016] or “he recommended against screening” [2.5% in 2016]), or “refusal to participate”, all dropped significantly between 2014 and 2016. Conclusions: The issue of “individual negligence” requires further analysis so as to clearly define the categories of individuals who remain unreceptive to screening and identify how best to involve them. The significant mention of “no risk factors” reveals ignorance of the fact that the colorectal cancer screening program actually targets all individuals in a given age group, regardless of individual risk factors. The decrease in reasons involving “fear" or related to the physician may be a result of awareness campaigns and GP mobilization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document